Coneixement comú

Data de naixement: 1957
Gènere: male
Nacionalitat: USA
Professions: producer
screenwriter

Membres

Ressenyes

Friends: Season 1 de David Crane

It’s kinda mindless and episodic, and not actually like a novel (or a multi-volume novel) like “Crazy Ex-Girlfriend” (or “Battlestar Galactica”, for the bloody-minded), and socially speaking it’s certainly the product of another century and the product of the popular girls and boys, you know—I thought that Phoebe was going to be this great character until I realized that she was just a cipher for a crazy cat lady who’s excessively intelligent and weird, or, just the Other Girl, you know—but I certainly liked this better than “I Love Lucy”, which is in turn slightly better than any butler-and-manor-house-mythology, no matter when it was made. (It has nothing to do with what butlers were really like, shows like that.) I mean, I don’t mean to slight Frank Sinatra—back to ‘Lucy’—but then music is generally much more /timeless/—it really is—than gendered stories about the Cuban Knightley making fun of his wife’s intelligence, you know. (Jane’s books are okay sometimes, but I really didn’t like “Emma”, you know.)

So, I don’t know. “Friends” is a cultural symbol, an altar in the popular imagination. As such things go, it’s pretty unobjectionable. I know I make too many comparisons, but it’s also more gender-balanced than “King of Queens”, (or “Seinfeld”), although it’s, you know, not-quite-feminist-not-quite-anti-feminist, like a lot of popular things, you know. Maybe even less rosy-eyed than “How I Met Your Mother”, less past-centered, you know. —This is how we live now. It sucks. (shrugs). Live with it.—Of course, real appreciation is better than grousing, but rosy-eyed sitcoms have a way of putting a happy face over the empty/no gas thing on your car, (as Abraham Hicks put it, albeit without mentioning TV), and Friends is just kinda…. I don’t know. The worst thing you could say about it is it’s not /strictly/ realistic, but comedy is usually meant to /seem/ more realistic than it /is/, right.

It’s fine. Nothing wrong with it.

I make too many comparisons…. I’ll have to sing that Avril Lavigne song, la la la la la la la la la la complicated, makes me frustrated—I think those were the EXACT words, you guys.

…. I don’t know if this is a flaw in the show or me being the femme mystique boy, but I think that the female characters are much better differentiated than the male ones. In particular, I got the difference between Rachel and Monica (aristocrat femme vs normal), but I couldn’t get how Chandler and Joey weren’t the same person who looked somewhat different. I guess Ross is okay, but, I never understood where they were going with him. Phoebe is my favorite character on the show, although I feel like she’s the writers’ least favorite character, LOL. 😹

…. I mean, with the guys it’s like the two players and the cowardly lion; it’s not good television.

—But goosecap, goosecap: if we just watch the bad television uncritically, /then it’ll seem good/.

—😾

…. Rachel is a Four; Monica is a Two, and Phoebe is a Nine.

I don’t know the guys’ numbers. Joey is like a like-able jackass, Ross is a dated, unlike-able jackass, and Chandler is like, the other character, without a personality distinct from Joey’s.

I guess that Joey and Chandler are probably Eights and Ross is supposed to be a Five, I guess, although anybody slated to be a Five on a sitcom—good luck, right.

But like I said, I’m moody moon boy, right, so don’t listen to me.

…. But I do like how the really dramatic things happen off-stage. It’s cost-effective. It’s understated, clever.

…. But the men in “Friends” are so chauvie…. At least they’re not married chauvies, though. I guess I’m so far as being single was not Against teh Lawe in 1994 as it was in 1914 or even 1954, society had made some progress.

…. Rachel is the Maiden, Monica is the Mother, Phoebe is the Crone…. But, I don’t know, I don’t like it.

They also have this obsession with punishing the lesbians and/or futilely trying to turn them straight—I mean, come on, for how many episodes are we afraid of lesbians; I mean, we’re done with Paolo, right—but in general, it’s poorly or obviously done in a “clean” way, you know.

…. I can sorta get why people like it, even though I’m not going to watch another season.

Although I don’t think that Ross really loves Rachel, you know. And it’s just such a weird trope, right: oh poor Ross you’re such a loser; if only you could get into a relationship with Rachel and find out you don’t love her. 🐒😸😘

‘Course, I guess I’m a spoil-sport. It’s the result of education. And people are too educated, or at least, pretend to be too educated. The sell paragraph for “Friends” is like “they won awards” and “it’s officially a good show”; if the world weren’t nuts they’d just have some fan gush and emote over it, but that would imply that the world wanted to be happy, when really we want to win an award, and be officially an educated person, right. 🤪 🏆

…. I mean, Ross can’t have Rachel because love is powerful and Ross is a loser, but also because it’s like, we can’t make demands of the audience, you know; you can’t ask them to remember things. You only have to explain the show one time: (Monica to Rachel) (points to Ross) See, that’s the boy who likes you, who thinks he likes you, only he always lets something get in the way.

That being said, (ie the whole “war never changes” bs), sitcoms (or observational comedy TV, as I call it), probably is okay sometimes, as it’s a good genre for families, or perhaps very stable friendships, you know…. But it does tend towards “I love you for what you’re not”, right, which isn’t good.

…. (Toni Morrison) The love of a free man is never safe.
(Ross) Okay, have you met white people? Have you met sitcom people? Have you met sitcom television executives? (laugh track) The love of a free man is safe, alright. The love of a free man is…. (trying to think of a synonym, then, after shrugging) safe.

…. Anyway, although it’s very average about most topics—‘you can never really have money’, for example—at least it’s not an elaborate fantasy, like, you know, You too can marry Paul, Earl of Pansypants, and have that filthy rich experience that has nothing to do with the material world: I mean, really, it’s about philosophy, you know; it’s about the Forms; it’s about our Empire….

…. Babies are kinda scary. I’m afraid they might kill, you know. You know what the Buddhists say, No birth no death 😸

But yeah.

…. Chandler is kinda cool and funny, even though he’s a jackass, you know.

Chandler: And it turns out, there IS a person of color in season one of “Friends”, (pause), it’s just that we waited until the last thirty seconds of the last episode to introduce her.
Monica: Oh come on, Chandler, it’s hard to find people of color who—
Chandler: Who live in New York City? (drinks drink). We might have to hire a private investigator, go under cover or something.
Joey: Or just go out and play basketball. (laughs)
Chandler: Joey, I’m TRYING to be cynical here.
Joey: What—so I laughed! So what’s the big deal?… (més)

Marcat

goosecap | Hi ha 1 ressenya més | Jun 9, 2023 |

FRIENDS: SERIE COMPLETA de David Crane

Serie de TV (1994-2004). 10 temporadas. 236 episodios. "Friends" narra las aventuras y desventuras de seis jóvenes de Nueva York. Rachel, Monica, Phoebe, Ross, Chandler y Joey forman una unida pandilla de amigos que viven en Manhattan y que suelen reunirse en sus apartamentos o en su bar habitual, el Central Perk. A pesar de los numerosos cambios que se producen en sus vidas, su amistad es inquebrantable en la dura batalla por salir adelante en sus periplos profesionales y personales.

Marcat

bibliest | Jan 18, 2019 |